Giving players narrative control: good bad or indifferent?

[Imaro]

Speaking of hyperbole.
...

The problem I see is that narrative control being given to the players is automatically painted as the players having 100% control over all elements of play 100% of the time.

I would suggest actually reading a few games that allow for limited narrative control to be exercised by players before actually participating in the conversation. It saves a lot of time from having to repeat endlessly what granting limited narrative control means.

Hmm, that's not the problem I'm seeing at all. The problem I'm seeing is that some poeple want the definition of (limited) narrative control to be so broad as to have very little to no distinction between actual narrative control on the part of the players and players seeking DM fiat. I'm curious, where do you draw the line between the two?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Speaking of hyperbole.

Do you have this ability in your character (ie, 10th level wizard forex)? Or, do you have in place a mechanic which allows for limited narrative control that would allow for this to occur?

If not, then no, it would not be fine.

The problem I see is that narrative control being given to the players is automatically painted as the players having 100% control over all elements of play 100% of the time.

I would suggest actually reading a few games that allow for limited narrative control to be exercised by players before actually participating in the conversation. It saves a lot of time from having to repeat endlessly what granting limited narrative control means.

I'm quite familliar with the concept and am able to enjoy and appreciate games written with this as a design concept. I really like HEX and Old School Hack which feature these elements and I can get behind the idea when playing them.

D&D just isn't one of those games. If we are talking about this stuff as it applies to games that are written for it then ok. Trying to shoehorn it into every game no matter what is something different.

 

[Janx]

Interesting post. I can't XP yet, but I find the mixture of simulationist/narrativist more palatable than a more narrative approach. Thanks for the insight, I found it interesting. As always, play what you like

I'm not sure what you mean with these terms, or whether you would use the method from pemerton that you quoted or not.

Since you used a "but", it sounds like you would not. Your terms seem contradictory. A purely narrative approach would have involved not die rolls or skills checks. Pem's approach struck me as combining simulation rules into the narrative, the very thing you said you prefer.

what I get from pemerton's post is:

• by default, the NPC is going to do X
• the PCs object and are going to try to prevent X
• figure out what rules/skills apply and make some die rolls to find out who wins
• based on the results, narrate a description that supports the result without contradicting established fact and maintaing plausibility and setting consistency.

 

[Janx]

I'm quite familliar with the concept and am able to enjoy and appreciate games written with this as a design concept. I really like HEX and Old School Hack which feature these elements and I can get behind the idea when playing them.

D&D just isn't one of those games. If we are talking about this stuff as it applies to games that are written for it then ok. Trying to shoehorn it into every game no matter what is something different.

this is a good point. I play D&D. I don't houserule it much, and while I use it for a lot of kinds of games, I don't want to buy another game or turn it into another game.

I could do without the big fancy academic words like simulationist or narrative control. Nobody agrees on their meaning.

But I do recognize, that for all the eons D&D has existed, something fishy is going on when players ask questions. They are both trying to get information, and trying to manipulate the situation.

It's generally accepted that some level of that is OK as far as the player manipulating the game world.

It's also accepted that some facts are beyond a players ability to manipulate or determine, even for themselves.

Chargen rules or GM approval rules limit what your PC can have for a background. Game rules are usually quite clear in limiting your PCs ability to move, fight or shoot fireballs from his mouth.

And if we ratchet this up further, the argument of "That's not what your character would do" has existed for as long as D&D has existed. Right or wrong, when a player says he is playing X kind of character and then wants his PC to do -X which goes against what he declared his PC was like, the GM is in a pickle.

Does he warn the PC and threaten the player's "narrative" control?
Does he block the PC action, and negate the player's "narrative" control?
Does he let it happen, and damage the internal consistency of the world?
Does he let it happen, and create consequences for it as part of the game?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not sure what you mean with these terms, or whether you would use the method from pemerton that you quoted or not.

I might use them in a different genre, using a system different from my own.

Since you used a "but", it sounds like you would not. Your terms seem contradictory. A purely narrative approach would have involved not die rolls or skills checks. Pem's approach struck me as combining simulation rules into the narrative, the very thing you said you prefer.

I prefer more simulationist games. Knowing that, it's easy to see that I'd prefer a more simulationist narrative game over simply a more narrative game. It brings the base back to simulation, which is more palatable to my personal tastes. That's all I was saying.

what I get from pemerton's post is:

• by default, the NPC is going to do X
• the PCs object and are going to try to prevent X
• figure out what rules/skills apply and make some die rolls to find out who wins
• based on the results, narrate a description that supports the result without contradicting established fact and maintaing plausibility and setting consistency.

Right, which is more narrative than I prefer most of the time, because it leaves room for "setting luck" to help or hurt on the check. By "setting luck", I mean the setting getting involved to save the day, and make the check make sense.

For example, if a villain gets +20 on their Streetwise check, odds are they know the best route to where they're headed. However, the GM initiates a skill challenge, letting the PCs contribute. One PC contributes a "shortcut" with a Streetwise check of his own, even though his bonus is only at +15. He succeeds, and the GM rules that he leads them down a parallel street while pursuing the villain, because he knows that today is the day of a parade, and that the villain will be funneled closer to their street, saving them precious time. While this makes sense, it's utilizing "setting luck" to avoid "hiccups" in the internal consistency of the game. It's the "as a matter of fact, now that you've rolled this high, the setting adds this element that wasn't there before." That's a little too much narrative control in my fantasy-genre game, but that's me. Tastes differ.

However, when running a game with a little more narrative control for the players (like Mutants and Masterminds 2e), I don't mind the approach. For example, when injured in M&M, you have to roll a Toughness save. At one point, one of the players was finally hit, and he was the least tough of the group. And it wasn't a hit, it was a crit. He used the remaining Hero Points (player narrative control tokens) to grab a feat that let him take a 20 on the Toughness save by spending a Hero Point, and then spent a Hero Point on it. When I described the scene, his character slipped while the enemy nearly hit him, but a different villain (who they were in the middle of saving) remote controlled his power suit into the way, which absorbed most of the impact for the player. This was very much messing with the narrative to fit the scene in a consistent way, but it's less simulationist than I like in a fantasy-genre game (personally, of course).

It just depends on the game for me. I don't think it's wrong to play with a narrative style. I think a narrative/simulationist approach is more palatable than a more narrative approach. Does this help clear things up?

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

A purely narrative approach would have involved not die rolls or skills checks.

I'm pretty sure that by "narrative" JC means "in the style of narrativist/indie games". In the jargon of Forge-influenced indie game design, resolution with die rolls or skill checks is called "drama" (as opposed to "fortune"). But there is no special link between drama resolution and narrativist play. "Narrativist" play, here, means play which is aimed less at immersive exploration of the gameworld, and more at the GM and the players pushing thematic buttons. The slogans that get used at the Forge are "The right to dreaam" (simulationist) vs "Story now" (narrativist).

Another way of capturing the difference, I think, is this: A few days ago I was talking to one of my players about different games, and he said that one thing that he likes about 4e is that, rather than "being" his PC, the system lets him "play" his PC. Which I interpret as meaning that the play experience is not so much immersion/exploration, but deliberate choices to push the game (and the PC) into interesting and engaging situations.

I prefer more simulationist games. Knowing that, it's easy to see that I'd prefer a more simulationist narrative game over simply a more narrative game. It brings the base back to simulation, which is more palatable to my personal tastes. That's all I was saying.

<snip>

I don't think it's wrong to play with a narrative style. I think a narrative/simulationist approach is more palatable than a more narrative approach. Does this help clear things up?

For what it's worth, I didn't have any trouble following your post.

D&D just isn't one of those games.

Two questions.

First, are you including 4e here? I think it's highly arguable that 4e is such a game.

Second, isn't the classic spirit of D&D rules improvisation and the published books as guidelines, not rules? So what's wrong with people bringing indie techniques into their D&D games?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm pretty sure that by "narrative" JC means "in the style of narrativist/indie games".

For the section of your post that involved me, I'd say you're right on with my intentions and meanings. I think we're on the same page. As always, play what you like

 

[Guest 85555]

Personally I wasn't using Narrative in the forge sense, just in the general sense of describing things that happen and the build of events over the course of the game session.

 

[Hussar]

Hmm, that's not the problem I'm seeing at all. The problem I'm seeing is that some poeple want the definition of (limited) narrative control to be so broad as to have very little to no distinction between actual narrative control on the part of the players and players seeking DM fiat. I'm curious, where do you draw the line between the two?

Is the player's narrative control contradicting established facts in the campaign?

That's pretty much where I'd draw the line. No, the player's character cannot shoot lightning from his mouth, because it's been established in the game world that this character isn't innately magical and has no actual means of doing so.

OTOH, going by the original example, there are no established facts which are being contradicted. "Is there a shortcut" is not contradicting (presumably) anything. If it is contradicting things, then it would not be limited narrative control, but rather, outright full power narrative control.

The funny thing is, everyone seems to jump to this sort of thing whenever this conversation comes up. "We cannot possibly give that level of control to the players because they'll be douchebags and start abusing it" is about what's being said here.

My question always is, why are you playing with people you cannot trust to not screw over your campaign? There are a hundred different ways a player can deep six your campaign if he wants to. What does it matter if you add a hundred and first way?

Adding this sort of thing to D&D is trivially easy. It simply requires a slight shift in the DM. Or, to put it another way, the DM has to relax the sphincter just a little and let the players have a bit more say in how things run and trust that the players are just as interested in having a good game as the DM.

 

[Guest 85555]

For me. The issue isn't about the players mesding up the GM's campaign, it is about my experience of the game as a player. When players have too much control of the narrative The setting just feels less objective and less a thing on its own to me. That is why I like the GM as consistent source of setting material. I'd much rather focus on my character's experience of the setting and have his control over it be limited to his abilities (ie he can try to exert some control of the setting through interacting with it; my influence over setting as player begins and ends with my character).